Hi
As we've always had a range of views on PICs, why not just express concern that they can be abused and are outside the PDP and thus call for their review?
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 20, 2016, at 17:37, avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I oppose this addition.
>
>
> Not only do I disagree with the way it is worded, I think that PICs are
> important and should be enforced.
>
>
> I also think that the issue of PICs should be discussed in a PDP and
> that they probably should be part of the gTLD SubPro PDP WG
> consideration. New gTLD SubPro should talk about their use and others
> should talk about their enforcement.
>
>
> I agree that they way they were done in the last round was adhoc and
> arbitrary. As far as coercive, while some may claim to having been
> coerced many applicants did refuse to create any without any repercussion.
>
>
> I think that if an applicant applies for name and commits in their
> application to enforce some public interest conditions, those should be
> included in the contract and should be enforced.
>
>
> avri
>
>
>> On 20-Sep-16 10:29, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Vidushi.
>>
>> I added a new paragraph about PICs (public interest commitments) to
>> the HR section.
>>
>>
>>
>> PICS. We oppose allowing the GAC or ALAC to hold applicants hostage in
>> order to extract so-called “Public Interest Commitments” from new
>> registries. PICs actually constitute a form of policy making that
>> bypasses the GNSO and the entire bottom up process. By imposing
>> content regulations on registries, they also can clash with ICANN’s
>> new mission statement, which is supposed to prevent it from regulating
>> content
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*[log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:44 AM
>> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: pre-warning draft comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Milton,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I have taken off the FCFS section and made
>> it a comment for anyone who disagrees with this change.
>>
>> Some other comments that require a rewrite I have not resolved - I
>> would ask you to edit the document directly as that would be most
>> accurate.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>> ----- On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> I hope this is not the final version, it contain some sections
>> that don't make sense and need to be modified.
>>
>> I have added some comments in the Google doc. In particular, I
>> think we need to delete altogether what is now section c), and
>> probably also section d).
>>
>> Neither of them make coherent points and they espouse positions
>> which do not have consensus support i n NCSG
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Vidushi Marda
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 3:32:06 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft
>> comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedures WG:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#.
>> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the
>> policy committee can pick this up now.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *To: *[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Cc: *[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent: *Monday, September 19, 2016 11:06:35 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft
>> comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedures WG:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#.
>> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the
>> policy committee can pick this up now.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>>
>> ----- On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Vidushi Marda
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I think the idea of deadlines for comments work well. Thanks
>> for the suggestion Farzi.
>>
>> Can we make the last day for comments/feedback on the doc this
>> Friday the 9th? That way we should be able to send in the doc
>> by next week after incorporating them.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>> ----- On Sep 5, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Michael Oghia
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 Farzi
>>
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 5:18 PM, farzaneh badii
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Vidushi and Niels,
>>
>> I think your document will benefit from more
>> referencing to the actual policies you are talking
>> about. Also as Tatiana pointed out you need to resolve
>> the comments first. I suggest set a deadline for
>> people to comment, then resolve those comments and
>> then send it out to policy committee. This is what we
>> did in the past and worked out well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2016 at 14:33, Tatiana Tropina
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Niels and all,
>>
>> some of the comments in the google doc (e.g.
>> Avri's comments) require further work and/or
>> clarification, don't think the document can be
>> sent to the PC as it is.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Tatiana
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2016 at 14:30, Niels ten Oever
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> This document has now been reviewed and
>> commented on by several people,
>> perhaps the policy committee can pick this up?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>> On 08/30/2016 07:43 PM, Vidushi Marda wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Please find the first draft comment to the
>> gTLD Subsequent Procedure WG at this link:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> While the request was extremely detailed
>> with six subjects and specific questions under
>> each, due to paucity of time, this draft only
>> discusses over arching human rights concerns.
>>>
>>> I look forward to your feedback and comments.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Vidushi
>>>
>>> ----- On Aug 26, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Kathy
>> Kleiman [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Niels,
>>>>
>>>> I think this idea is a very good one. I
>> have been worried that we did
>>>> not submit a comment to the New gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedures Working
>>>> Group, especially on Community Groups. A
>> few weeks ago, Avri was kind
>>>> enough to answer my questions about this,
>> and encourage our NCSG
>>>> participation. I think it is the perfect
>> time to submit a comment --
>>>> even a little late!
>>>>
>>>> But quick note, at least in the US, next
>> week is big end of summer
>>>> vacation week and traditionally very quiet.
>> Perhaps allowing a week for
>>>> comment would enable more people to
>> participate.
>>>>
>>>> Best and tx to you, Vidushi and the CCWP HR,
>>>>
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/26/2016 7:50 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this e-mail finds you all well. We
>> just had a very productive
>>>>> call of the CCWP HR in which we discussed
>> several issues in which the
>>>>> gTLD Subsequenty Procedures WG impacts
>> human rights (community priority
>>>>> procedure, how 'community' is defined,
>> lack of gTLD applications from
>>>>> the global south, etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> I am aware that the first official
>> input/comment period of this WG is
>>>>> over, but I think if we would send
>> something in it might still be
>>>>> considered, especially since the NCSG did
>> not send comment yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vidushi has graciously offered to do the
>> drafting, also based on the
>>>>> report she initially drafted and which was
>> accepted as CCWP HR document [0].
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is an early warning that you'll
>> receive a draft comment on
>>>>> Tuesday, if we want to it to be considered
>> I think we would need to
>>>>> submit it rather switfly, that's why I am
>> sending this pre-warning so
>>>>> you know you can excpect it. Stay tuned :)
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Niels
>>>>>
>>>>> [0]
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/4.CCWP-HR%20Jurisdiction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1467180138000&api=v2
>>
>> --
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>>
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>>
>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Farzaneh
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
